An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
PL29S.242500
DEVELOPMENT: Part Change-of-Use from Public House to Betting Office.
LOCATION: The Cottage Inn, Bluebell, Dublin 12.
PLANNING APPLICATION
Planning Authority: Dublin City Council
Planning Authority Reg. No.: 2871/13
Applicants: Paddy Power PLC
Application Type: Permission
Planning Authority Decision: Grant Permission with Conditions
PLANNING APPEAL
Appellant: Keira Byrne
Type of Appeal: Third Party -v- Grant
Date of Site Inspection: 28 January 2014
INSPECTOR Keith Sargeant
Appendices: Photographs and Key Map; Site Location Sketch; Development Plan Extracts
______PL29S.242500 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 9
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This is a third party appeal against a decision of the Planning Authority to grant permission subject to conditions, for a part change of use of an existing public house premises to a betting office.
1.2 The first party response to the appeal submits, in the first instance, that the appeal is vexatious. An Bord Pleanala has written to the applicant party (October 2013) stating that the letter of appeal satisfies the requirements of section 127 of the Planning and Development Act as amended and is valid.
1.3 I have read the appeal file and visited the site and its environs and can now report as set down below.
2.0 SITE CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Location
2.1.1 The site has an inner suburban location, in the Bluebell area of Dublin. The character of the area is mainly low and medium density suburban with some light industrial/warehousing uses in the near vicinity of the appeal site. Bluebell sits in the triangle formed by the Grand Canal to the north, the Naas Road (including ‘Old Naas Road’) to the south and east and the Kylemore Road (Walkinstown – Ballyfermot) to the west.
2.1.2 Site frontage is onto Bluebell Avenue (north) with residential property to the west, and a motor sales premises to the south. Lands to the east of the site appear to be in industrial (including open storage) use.
2.1.3 In the wider area, there are predominantly industrial uses including warehousing and some retail warehousing, also some large motor sales outlets.
2.2 Site Description
2.2.1 The site itself is of broadly rectangular shape defined by walls of high and medium height to the south and east, and a low wall to the north (road frontage boundary). There are two vehicular access points to/from the public road. The western boundary is defined by a security wire mesh fence, outside which there is a line of mature trees and a low wall effectively defining the curtilage of neighbouring residential property.
______PL29S.242500 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 9
2.2.2 Within the site the front area is devoted to car parking, and there is a small glass bank repository adjacent to the western boundary. The building proposed for subdivision is located to the rear of the site. Behind the building there is a narrow storage/service access area, accessed mainly via a gate, connecting to the car park, in the south-west corner of the site. This narrow yard area is given over mainly to waste and certain miscellaneous storage, with bins apparently moved for collection via the corner gate. Part of the narrow yard, in its eastern half, is segregated and appropriately covered as an outdoor smoking area, understood to be mainly for occasional summer use.
2.2.3 There are three entrances at the front of the premises. The middle and eastern entrances are in active pub access/emergency exit use. The western end entrance is used for beer keg and other drinks deliveries. Within the building the keg and bottle storage is concentrated in the western end of the building (now proposed for the proposed development), where there is also an internal refrigeration complex. It is understood the storage area and related plant and equipment is to be relocated east of the now proposed development unit. There are miscellaneous doors with access to the rear yard. The current public house operation appears to be an exclusively ground floor operation.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The planning report for the Planning Authority, dated 27 August 2013, records one item of site planning history, namely 1047/99, described as permission granted for a single-storey extension (168 square metres) to west and east sides, and internal alterations. This planning history is rather dated with permission granted circa summer 2009. Conditions attached were not onerous. The current premises appears now to incorporate that then permitted development.
3.2 Other planning history noted in section 17 of the planning application form comprises two cases 1600-91 and 2624-03. Decisions in these cases include development proposals relating to the current subject premises. The cases are dated. However it may be noted that a condition attached to the 2624-03 case permitted a restaurant on first floor above public house subject to conditions including that the proposed restaurant not operate as an extension per se of the existing public house, in order to ensure an appropriate mix of uses on the site and to protect the amenities of the adjoining residential area (source: Dublin City Council website).
3.3 An Bord Pleanála has not adjudicated on any recent case of relevance on site or nearby. It may be noted that the applicants’ response to the current appeal
______PL29S.242500 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 9
reference cases dealt with by An Bord Pleanála in the past, specifically references nos. 224128 (Athlone); 228845 (Ashbourne) and 230109 (Waterford) where – it is submitted – the Board found partial changes of use to be acceptable. Copies of Board Orders relating to these cases are in a wallet on the current file.
4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING AUTHORITY ASSESSMENT
4.1 Proposed Development
4.1.1 The proposed described is described in the planning application and public notices as set down below.
• Change of use from existing public house to betting office use (173 sq.m.) in the western part of the existing “The Cottage Inn” public house together with associated works including the rearrangement of the internal space, forming new fire escape door to rear, 4 no. satellite dishes, 3 no. condenser units, new external signage on the north and west elevations and 2 no. freestanding signs at front.
4.1.2 The site area is stated at 2442 square metres (0.244 hectares approx.).
4.1.3 Gross floor area of the existing building is stated at 670 square metres, of which it is proposed to convert 173 square metres to betting shop use.
4.1.4 The submitted suite of drawings include elevation drawing which show separate pedestrian access to existing and proposed premises. Submitted floor plans indicate a partition wall between existing and proposed premises with no interconnecting opes. Separate W.C.s etc. are proposed for each premises.
4.2 Planning Authority Assessment
4.2.1 Planning Report dated 27 August 2013 refers.
4.2.2 The Report noted a third party observation made (current appellant) and assessed the application by reference to the provisions of the Development Plan, in particular the relevant Z6 zoning provisions for the area.
4.2.3 The Report concluded with a recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions.
______PL29S.242500 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 9
4.3 Planning Authority Decision
4.3.1 By order dated 27 August 2013 the Planning Authority decided to grant permission subject to ten conditions.
4.3.2 In the context of the submitted appeal, I draw the attention of the Board to condition no. 1 of the conditions proposed by the Planning Authority. This condition requires, amongst other things, that:
“… For the avoidance of doubt, this permission shall not be construed as approving any development shown on the plans, particulars and specifications, the nature and extent of which has not been adequately stated in the statutory public notices.”
The reason given for this condition is ostensibly to comply with permission regulations.
5.0 APPEAL AND RESPONSES
5.1 The Appeal
5.1.1 The appeal has been submitted by Keira Byrne of 13K Iveagh Trust, Dublin 8, in a letter dated 20 September 2013.
5.1.2 The grounds of appeal may be summarised:
• location within an existing public house is inappropriate and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area;
• observation made at planning application stage not properly considered by the Planning Authority;
• public notices do not adequately and accurately describe the development including the physical subdivision of the public house unit.
5.1.3 The appeal requests that An Bord Pleanála refuse permission in the case.
5.2 Planning Authority Response to Appeal
The Planning Authority has not submitted any observations on the appeal.
______PL29S.242500 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 9
5.3 Applicants’ Response to Appeal
5.3.1 Submission by O’Connor Whelan dated 18 October 2013, on behalf of the applicants, refers.
5.3.2 The appeal submits in the first instance that the appeal is vexatious and should be dismissed.
5.3.3 Without prejudice to their submission that the appeal is vexatious, the substantive issues raised are addressed and include the following observations.
• partial use of vacant site is appropriate for the use proposed and consistent with previous decisions elsewhere by An Bord Pleanala (cases 224128; 228845 and 230109 refer);
• proposed development is consistent with Development Plan zoning objectives for the area;
• public notices were adequate and not dissimilar to the notices presented in other cases decided by An Bord Pleanála as noted above.
5.3.4 In its conclusions the submission confirms that there is no intention to sell alcohol in the proposed betting office.
6.0 OFFICIAL POLICY
I consider the relevant official policy in this case is contained in the prevailing City Development Plan and in Development Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (DMPG).
6.1 DMPG
Section 3.4 of DMPG (2007) addresses the purpose of public notices. Sections 3.5 and 3.6 offer advice on newspaper notices and site notices. I have studied these sections of DMPG prior to the preparation of my report in the current appeal case.
6.2 Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017
6.2.1 Relevant sections of the Plan are highlighted attached herewith to my report.
______PL29S.242500 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 9
6.2.2 The site is zoned Z6 – to provide for the creation and protection of enterprise and facilitate opportunities for employment creation. Lands to the east, south and west of the appeal site have like zoning. To the north (opposite side of public road), Z1 (residential) zoning applies. There are no other specific Development Plan designations affecting the appeal site.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
The response to the appeal for the applicants submits in the first instance that the current appeal is vexatious. It is submitted for the applicants that there are no real grounds to the appeal. Having reviewed the file I agree with the applicants’ summary of the grounds identified in their submission. As such there are grounds of appeal. Adequate public notice is an important issue from a procedural point of view and I consider the appeal should be properly considered and not dismissed.
7.1 Principle of Development
The Planning Authority has concluded, in its Planning Report on file, that by reference to the provisions of the City Plan, and the pattern of development in the area, the proposed development would be acceptable in planning terms. The justification for the development by reference to Development Plan provisions is further elaborated in the applicants’ response to appeal. I agree fully with these reports and consider the case need only otherwise be assessed by reference to the submitted grounds of appeal. These are addressed below.
7.2 Conflict with Proper Planning and Sustainable Development of the Area.
By reference to my observations in section 7.1, above, and having regard to the applicants’ submission that the proposed partial change of use of a vacant section of public house is entirely appropriate, I do not consider the appeal should be upheld under this heading.
7.3 Inadequate Public Notice
7.3.1 In my view the nature and extent of the development are adequately described in public notices. It is clear that part of the premises is proposed for change of use. The area of the proposed development is actually stated at 173 square metres in the public notices, consistent with the area identified on plans. The notices refer to associated works. The notices appear to observe the intention of public notices as outlined in DMPG.
______PL29S.242500 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 9
7.3.2 As noted in a previous section of my report, above, submitted floor plans and elevations indicate full physical subdivision of the premises, each to be effectively self-contained and with separate independent front access. This is clear from examination of the plans. The plans are clearly referred to in the public notices as being available for inspection at a location clearly stated in the public notices. I agree with the thrust of the applicants’ defence of their public notices, which appear to be compliant with prevailing Regulations.
7.3.3 Regarding the wording of condition no. 1 proposed by the Planning Authority, in its decision, this is clearly a “catch-all” provision in the suite of conditions. This practice by the Planning Authority clearly seeks to complement the provisions of Regulations relating to public notice legal requirements. However the existence of such wording should not be misconstrued so as to supplant the satisfactory compliance of applicants with application requirements. Moreover the relevant planning condition applies to the development when undertaken. As such it is not directly related to public notice requirements per se.
7.3.4 Regarding the concern that, arising from perceived public notice inadequacies, there could be a permission effected which would facilitate serving alcoholic beverages etc. in the proposed betting office, I do not accept that this would be the case. The applicants have made a bona fide application for change of use, this application made with the consent of the owner, confirmed on file. At appeal stage the applicants’ response to appeal confirms no intention of offering pub sales in the proposed betting office. Plans show full physical separation of premises including access and emergency exit etc. There is a rear smoking area existing at the public house currently segregated from the rear yard area including the rear yard area in the proposed development. Meanwhile the liquor licensing laws operate generally independently of planning law.
7.3.5 As a final comment under the public notice heading, I wish to observe that the Planning Report for the Planning Authority, prepared at planning application stage, clearly confirms that the site notice was in place at time of application/inspection. There is no suggestion in that report or elsewhere in the Planning Authority documentation, of any public notice shortfall. Copies of the relevant notices are on the An Bord Pleanála file. In this regard I cannot see how the appellant can reasonably contend dissatisfaction with the original consideration of the observation made at planning application stage. It remains open for the Board to conclude that the current appeal is vexatious, but I do not recommend this approach in the case. There are stated grounds of appeal, in the submitted appeal.
______PL29S.242500 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 9
7.4 Other Issues
7.4.1 It would appear that some new front or other access arrangement may be need for beer/drinks deliveries to the public house, if a betting shop is permitted and developed. The rear yard access way would appear to be too restricted for this purpose. A planning condition would be appropriate to clarify the scope of any permission now granted by An Bord Pleanala, in the interest of clarity and visual amenity and to regulate and control the development of the site.
7.4.2 There is a smoking area attached to the rear of the public house, within the rear yard area. This occupies the full depth of the yard over an area of approximately 10 square metres. There is access to/from this smoking area to/from the pub and to/from that area of the yard east of the smoking area. A purpose built blank wall segregates it from the remainder of the yard to the west. A planning condition may be considered appropriate to secure this general arrangement, so that there is total segregation of the pub and betting office uses, as proposed internally.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
Grant permission subject to conditions, for the following reasons and considerations.
REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Having regard to the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan and the pattern of development in the area, it is considered that subject to compliance with the conditions specified below, the proposed development of a self contained betting office separate from the public house, would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
N.B. Recommended draft planning conditions will follow under separate cover.
______Keith Sargeant Senior Planning Inspector
29 January, 2014. ym ______PL29S.242500 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 9